Comments on Recent Cases: July 2025
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireworks#/media/File:2013_Fireworks_on_Eiffel_Tower_10.jpg
Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.
Court Affirms Quantum Meruit Claim Even Where Written Contract Exists
While a plaintiff in litigation can recover money owed without a written contract on the principles of basic fairness, the existence of a written contract often prohibits recovery on fairness or “equitable” grounds. But litigants often debate when a written contract exists.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an employee had a written contract with an employer. The employee sued for unpaid wages, including pay for weekend work. The employee claimed that the weekend work was not covered by the contract and successfully convinced the court that equitable principles could therefore apply. Without an agreement for the amount of wages due, the court awarded the employee “quantum meruit,” or the value of the work performed. The appeals court affirmed, noting that the written agreement did not explain how to compute the payment due for weekend work.
Cases like this illustrate how courts determine when equitable principles apply when evaluating quantum meruit claims.
Court Dismisses Many, But Not All, Claims by Voice Actors Against AI Company
A litigation complaint often alleges multiple legal theories to address the same problem. This is because a plaintiff may be concerned that a judge will dismiss some legal theories and so she may want to have alternate theories to explain why she is entitled to relief.
For example, in a recent case before the federal district court in Manhattan, voice actors sued an AI company, alleging it was profiting from AI imitations of their voices. The actors alleged violations of the false advertising statute, the copyright law, state civil rights law, breach of contract, and fraud. The court dismissed many of the theories, but not all, permitting the actors to proceed with their contract and civil rights claims and, possibly, the copyright claims.
Cases like this illustrate the benefit of considering many legal theories in a complaint.
Court Holds Arbitrator May Decide Scope of Arbitration Clause
Courts generally defer to arbitrators when parties sign arbitration agreements. Still, there is a lot of litigation about whether arbitration applies to a particular claim.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an executive sued his former employer. The employer claimed that an arbitration provision in his contract required the dispute go to arbitration instead of court. The employee argued that the contract only applied to his ownership of shares in the employer and not other subjects and the trial court agreed. The appeals court reversed, however, holding that an arbitrator alone determines the scope of an arbitration provision.
Cases like this illustrate the deference courts give to arbitration.
Court Holds Service Proper Even Where Defendant Claims He Didn’t Live at Address
A plaintiff may seek a default judgment against a defendant if the defendant does not respond to a complaint after it is delivered (or “served”). But the defendant may later claim she didn’t respond because she never really got the complaint. Courts may be skeptical of that claim, though.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Brooklyn, a plaintiff undertook a detailed search for a defendant and served papers at a Brooklyn address. The defendant claimed she didn’t live there at the time, but the appeals court affirmed a ruling that the service had been effective because, among other things, the plaintiff made a diligent effort to serve the defendant and the defendant did not submit evidence from the address’s real resident, affirming the defendant didn’t live there at the time.
Cases like this illustrate how difficult it can be for a defendant to challenge service.